Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (2.77 seconds)
Navin Maini vs M/S Ansal Hi-Tech Townships Ltd. & Anr. on 7 May, 2021 cites

Maneesh Jaikrishna & Anr. vs M/S. Unitech Limited on 2 May, 2016

"As far as the prohibition on use of underground water in construction is concerned, the learned counsel for the complainant has drawn my attention to the order dated 21.08.2012 passed by a Divisional Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 20032 of 2008 wherein the High Court noted that the public notice issued under Section 5(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 was published in the newspaper on 26.12.2000. It further shows that the said notice had imposed a complete ban upon the use of underground water in the construction without prior approval of the competent authority. It was noted by the High Court that despite publication of the aforesaid notice, the builders continued to use underground water for construction purposes. If there was a complete ban on use of underground CC 684/2016 Page 14 of 20 water for construction and the said prohibition was notified on 26.12.2000, the opposite party must have taken into account, the impact of the said prohibition while entering into Buyers Agreements with the complainants. Therefore, it is not open to the opposite party to rely upon the said prohibition in order to justify the delay in construction of the villas sold to the complainants. The opposite party knew at the time of entering into agreements with the complainants that it will not be able to use underground water for construction of the villas and therefore, will have to make alternative arrangements from authorized sources for making the water available for the said construction. Therefore, the aforesaid prohibition on use of the underground water for construction purpose does not justify the delay in completion of the construction. In any case, no material has been placed by the opposite party on record to show that efforts were made by it during the relevant period to procure water from alternative sources but it was unable to obtain the water from the said sources. More importantly, in the Buyers Agreement executed between the parties, it was not disclosed to the buyers that since no underground water can be used for construction purpose, the developer will have to arrange water from alternative sources and in case it is not able to arrange water, the construction would be delayed and in that case, it will not be held responsible for the delay in completion of the construction."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 5 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan And Aleya ... vs Dlf Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known ... on 24 August, 2020

29. Having discussed the maintainability of the present complaint, the next issue to be adjudicated is whether the Opposite Party No. 1 is actually deficient in providing its services to the Complainant. The expression Deficiency of Service has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported at (2020) 16 SCC 512, wherein it has been held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 470 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 Next